It would not be an exaggeration to say that Microsoft has been taking a beating in blog world lately. No matter how the company attempts to shine light on the benefits of their new operating system, tech journalists are not convinced Windows 8 is a worthy successor to its predecessor. Despite the obvious lack of a “Start” button (which has been replaced by the “Start” screen) there is something strangely familiar about Windows 8.

I used the OS extensively prior to, and following, its release - using both multi-touch displays and a mouse and keyboard. I can say without a doubt, having a touchscreen substantially improves the experience (even on a desktop), at least as far as discoverability is concerned. Switching between the Start screen and the desktop is as easy as tapping the Windows key (yes, that’s still there). But, oddities such as the charms on the right-hand side are better uncovered with a finger swipe gesture, rather than utilizing the mouse cursor. When navigating the desktop, touch becomes unnecessary since targets and buttons are impractically small. For that you need the tip of an arrow.

Having no interest in rehashing the problematic design implementations of the new OS, I would like to draw attention to its aesthetic, and make some comments about interface design more generally.

Microsoft made a big splash in the mobile market with the release of Windows Phone 7 and, subsequently, Windows Phone 8. Thankfully, it replaced the ungodly Windows Mobile platform (something I haven’t used since my short lived HP iPAQ). The tile interface, flat design, and elegant animations make it a very appealing mobile OS. While one could argue that Microsoft had no choice but to create something unique in order to distinguish itself from its primary competitor, Apple (even if simply to avoid a potential lawsuit), what they’ve accomplished in the mobile arena is truly innovative. Rather than create another Windows-like experience, they opted to take their fledgling OS into uncharted territory. The response from users has been very positive (except for the lack of applications). However, applying this design treatment to Windows proper hasn’t resulted in the same level of enthusiasm.

Most people recognize that Windows 8’s desktop closely resembles its predecessor.

Windows 8 desktop.

The only appreciable difference (sans the omission of the Start button) is the flatter design. Back/forward buttons are flat, solid colors have replaced translucent effects, and windows no longer cast shadows. The flat design seems to be in. The only remaining artifacts are the skeuomorphic icons, such as the recycle bin, the explore menu, my computer etc.

The other day, while I was editing a document in Word, I realized something. I’ve seen this design before. “This looks like Windows 98!,” I said to myself. Unfortunately, nobody was there to witness this epiphany.

Windows 98 desktop.

Ok, it’s not exactly the same. However, solid colors dominate windows, and there are no shadows cast by the windows. The overarching impression of the OS is much more muted. It’s as if the distracting animations and shiny edges were deliberately omitted to facilitate work.

So why would Microsoft take a relatively flat design approach, and go to the trouble of adding gradients and transparencies, only to throw it all away in the next release?

Simple. Software design is not unlike the fashion industry. What’s ‘in’ today might not be ‘in’ tomorrow. Think back to the software you used in the early 2000s. Have any of those design implementations remained untouched during the past decade? Probably not. I think it’s very possible that in ten years we will look back and say, “how did we ever live with that flat design?”

In a way, I feel bad for Microsoft. Regardless of the obvious faults with Windows 8, there are lots of things to like. We criticize them when they change things around on us, and we criticize them for being too safe. Conversely, major design changes made by Apple (though often highly criticized by the press) are welcomed with open arms by Apple users. People trust Apple to make the right decision for them, but they don’t trust Microsoft. Perhaps this is the byproduct of enjoying twenty years of outrageous success, while holding a firm monopoly over the entire computer industry.

Recent Articles

With the introduction of iPadOS, the iPad is now a viable productivity machine. But, its approach to multitasking and gesture controls are starkly different from the Mac. In this article I examine two things. iPadOS has been characterized as considerably more complicated than previous iPad versions of iOS. I compared iOS 12 and iPadOS to see how much gesture complexity has been added to the iPad platform. I also broadly compare the iPad and Mac’s multitasking gestures, number of keyboard shortcuts, and overall approach to app windowing to answer the following question. Is the iPad (and iPadOS) a capable productivity platform when compared to traditional desktop operating systems (OS), or is it simply a different take on how work should be done?

Devices labeled with the term “pro” come with a lot of expectations. The idea of a pro user is well defined in the desktop and laptop computing space. But, pro mobile devices (such as phones and tablets) are less well defined. This is problematic because devices that support the pro moniker cannot separate themselves from consumer grade options except in price - making the term a meaningless standard. Unlike their PC counterparts, they mobile devices are held back by the limitations of their respective app software and operating systems.

Kellen, from Droid Life, writes the following about the state of Google’s Wear OS smartwatch platform.

Wear OS is one of those initiatives from Google that has never failed to disappoint, yet it continues to stay alive through minor updates and name changes.

Sadly, Kellen’s summary of Wear OS’ state is accurate. The platform had so much promise when it was initially released, and some publications - such as Ars Technica - applauded the platform’s notification management system. Like many Google products, users are probably waiting for the company to pull the plug on this project anytime.

Jason Snell (and his co-hosts on the Accidental Tech Podcast) suggests prioritizing a hierarchy of needs when wishing for features in the next generation Mac laptops. How does modularity negatively affect the laptop industry and favor tablets/phones?

Watching tech companies mismanage their customers’ data and violating their privacy has been a horrifying experience. The debacle between Apple, Facebook, and Google is just the most recent example of data mismanagement. This year, I decided to secure (most) of my privacy online, and I thought I’d share what I did.

The debate among technology pundits about the tablet’s ability to serve as a productivity device is fierce. Apple’s iPad marketing “What is a computer?” has further fanned the flames, as the company is intentionally positioning the iPad Pro as a laptop replacement.

To me there is a more interesting question. Should the iPad forging a new road for what computing could be, or is it following a well-trodden road that will recreate what we already have?

We are rapidly moving toward a future where users will no longer have any control over the software they purchase. No physical copies and no digital backups. This article is about the shift from physical / Internet distribution to App Store-only distribution and the implications this has for users.